do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6308 — VFC/Timberland) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, footwear industry, merger control, textile industry








C_2011227EN.01000701.xml










2.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/7





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6308 — VFC/Timberland)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 227/06






1.


On 27 July 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which V.F. Corporation (‘VF’, USA) acquire sole control of The Timberland Company (‘Timberland’ USA) and all of its subsidiaries within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for VF: the design, development and distribution of branded lifestyle apparel and related goods through a number of consumer brands such as ‘The North Face’, ‘Lee’, ‘Wrangler’, ‘Reef’, ‘Vans’ and ‘Napapijri’. VF is a publicly listed company on the New York Stock Exchange and operates worldwide,










—


for Timberland: the design, development and marketing of premium quality footwear and apparel and accessories for men, women and children. Timberland is a publicly listed company on the New York Stock Exchange and operates in North America, Europe and Asia.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6308 — VFC/Timberland, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 769/2011 of 2 August 2011 providing for an allocation coefficient for the temporary exceptional Union support, for the fruit and vegetable sector
Date: 2011-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural product, aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, distribution of EU funding, fruit, ratio, vegetable








L_2011200EN.01001801.xml










3.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 200/18








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 769/2011
of 2 August 2011
         
providing for an allocation coefficient for the temporary exceptional Union support, for the fruit and vegetable sector


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 of 17 June 2011 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 7(3) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 introduced temporary exceptional support measures for the fruit and vegetable sector following an outbreak of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in Germany, which caused a significant disturbance of the Union fruit and vegetable market.












(2)


On the basis of the information notified by Member States in accordance with Article 7(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011, it appears that the requests for Union support have not exceeded the maximum amount of support fixed in Article 2 of that Regulation. Therefore, an allocation coefficient of 100 % has to be fixed for those requests.












(3)


For the sake of transparency, producer organisations and producers non members having applied for Union support should be informed swiftly on the allocation coefficient fixed by the Commission. For this reason and in order to ensure the efficient management of the measure, this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The requests for Union support which were received by the Member States for the period from 26 May 2011 to 30 June 2011 and notified to the Commission by the competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with Article 7(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2011 shall be accepted by applying an allocation coefficient of 100 %.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 August 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 160, 18.6.2011, p. 71.
Case T-432/11: Action brought on 2 August 2011 — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2011-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, human rights, international sanctions








C_2011290EN.01001302.xml










1.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 290/13





Action brought on 2 August 2011 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-432/11)
2011/C 290/18
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 and the subsequent measures implementing that decision which keep the applicant on the list of persons covered by the restrictive measures, and Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) and in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the applicant complains that the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law: the contested measures restrict the applicant’s fundamental rights in an unjustified and disproportionate manner, in particular his right to property, provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR and, lastly, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2011-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff








C_2011227EN.01000601.xml










2.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/6





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
2011/C 227/05
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

Page 46

The following paragraph is added before heading ‘0711’:







‘0710



Vegetables (uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water), frozen
The expression “frozen” as defined in the HS Explanatory Notes to this chapter, third paragraph, is also to be seen by the criteria set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case 120/75. By analogy, following the Court's interpretation of these criteria in its judgment in Case C-423/09, the process of freezing must give rise to substantial and irreversible changes, with the result that the product is no longer in the natural state.
Therefore products are “frozen” when the products which are subjected to the freezing processes undergo certain irreversible changes as a result of this very process, in particular to the structure of the cells, with the result that these products are no longer in the natural state, even after they have started to thaw or have thawed out.’.






Page 53

The first paragraph of heading ‘0811’ is replaced by the following:

‘The expression “frozen” as defined in the HS Explanatory Notes to this chapter, second paragraph, is also to be seen by the criteria set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case 120/75. By analogy, following the Court's interpretation of these criteria in its judgment in Case C-423/09, the process of freezing must give rise to substantial and irreversible changes, with the result that the product is no longer in the natural state.
Therefore products are “frozen” when the products which are subjected to the freezing processes undergo certain irreversible changes as a result of this very process, in particular to the structure of the cells, with the result that these products are no longer in the natural state, even after they have started to thaw or have thawed out.’.



(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1.
Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria apply
Date: 2011-08-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Syria, international sanctions, natural person, trade restriction








C_2011227EN.01000301.xml










2.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/3





Notice for the attention of the persons to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria apply
2011/C 227/02
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP (1), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Syria.
The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 6 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG K Coordination




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's Decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 74.

(2)  OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 33.
Case F-79/11: Action brought on 2 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-08-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: appointment of staff, indemnification, job access








C_2011311EN.01004701.xml










22.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/47





Action brought on 2 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-79/11)
2011/C 311/86
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered because of the failure to take measures to implement the judgment in Case F-128/07.

Form of order sought







—


Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 in respect of the loss of opportunity suffered because of the failure to take implementing measures in relation to him;










—


Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000 in respect to the non-material damage suffered through the complete failure by the Commission to notify him of how the Commission intended to give effect to the judgment of annulment;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011227EN.01000401.xml










2.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

1 August 2011
2011/C 227/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4415




JPY


Japanese yen


110,84




DKK


Danish krone


7,4501




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87955




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0070




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1270




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,6935




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


24,160




HUF


Hungarian forint


267,90




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7093




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9828




RON


Romanian leu


4,2215




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4116




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3041




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3713




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,2310




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6348




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7299




KRW


South Korean won


1 511,39




ZAR


South African rand


9,6076




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,2746




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4300




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 193,12




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2373




PHP


Philippine peso


60,449




RUB


Russian rouble


39,7390




THB


Thai baht


42,827




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2296




MXN


Mexican peso


16,7930




INR


Indian rupee


63,5340






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-433/11: Action brought on 2 August 2011 — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2011-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, human rights, international sanctions








C_2011290EN.01001401.xml










1.10.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 290/14





Action brought on 2 August 2011 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-433/11)
2011/C 290/19
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 and the subsequent measures implementing that decision (and, in particular, Council Decision 2011/302/CFSP of 23 May 2011, which provides for the applicant to be included on the list of persons covered by the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/273/CFSP, and Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 and the subsequent measures implementing it (namely, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 504/2011 of 23 May 2011 and the corrigendum thereto), in so far as they relate to the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), and by Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the applicant complains that the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law: the contested measures restrict the applicant’s fundamental rights in an unjustified and disproportionate manner, in particular his right to property, provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR, his freedom to engage in work and conduct his business provided for in Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, lastly, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2011-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff








C_2011227EN.01000501.xml










2.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/5





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
2011/C 227/04
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

Page 55

The Explanatory Notes to subheading 0904 20 10 are amended as follows:

‘0904 20 10   Sweet peppers

The peppers of this subheading (Capsicum annuum) are relatively large in size and have a sweet flavour (without a burning taste). They can have different colours. This subheading covers only dry peppers, whole or in pieces but neither crushed nor ground.’.



(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1.